nationfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Constitution
Languages I do not see anything about official languages, if I am right? --Bucurestean 18:50, November 26, 2009 (UTC) :Article 11. 18:52, November 26, 2009 (UTC) ::Lol, last point of the whole constitution... but if it is correct, the Oceana language cannot be an official language of Hurbanova which is unconstitutional. --Bucurestean 18:54, November 26, 2009 (UTC) :::Daar ga je wat snel door de bocht I'm not sure that's right. It's wiki policy that everything is in English, and all legal documents should be in English as well. But perhaps, allowing Oceana is an official/administrative language is okay too. It's not in the law that it is illegal è. 18:56, November 26, 2009 (UTC) ::::And Dutch in Train Village? Both languages aren't used at all. --Bucurestean 18:57, November 26, 2009 (UTC) :::::I know. If we get a Congress elected, we'll take a look at it :) 18:58, November 26, 2009 (UTC) ::::::Train Village Dutch is etinct McCrooke 18:59, November 26, 2009 (UTC) :::::::AEC x2) And Dutch in Train Village? Both languages aren't used at all. If they are official languages, all (important) documents/pages concerning those places should theoretically get a translation... --Bucurestean 18:57, November 26, 2009 (UTC) ::::::::A little note on Oceana: it's mainly a cultural language. Of course there are hardly any people writing or speaking it in their daily lifes. --OuWTB 15:00, November 27, 2009 (UTC) Change Wouldn't this have to be chnaged to the year of 2003? Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 18:54, January 8, 2011 (UTC) :I'm confused. Dimi will know for sure! 12:50, January 10, 2011 (UTC) ::No, Dimitri made this constitution: It was authored in 2007 by then-Crown Prince Dimitri of Lovia. It was approved by Congress by an absolute majority. I think we could say there was a pre-2007 constitution from 2003 until 2007 which needed a drastic change. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:01, January 10, 2011 (UTC) :::That made sense. But I don't think for four years there was a bad constitution. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 22:21, January 10, 2011 (UTC) ::::It could have been a 'transition constitution' which was finalized in 2007, after our transformation from anachronistic semi-absolute monarchy to ten-person democracy. 09:47, January 11, 2011 (UTC) :::::Indeed, that was what I was thinking :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:19, January 11, 2011 (UTC) ::::::According to Dimitri's plan, there have been laws, including a constitutional document, prior to 2007. The 2007 Congress, however, replaced it with the new Constitution, authored by the then-prince. -- 18:25, January 11, 2011 (UTC) :::::::I see. thanks. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 22:27, January 11, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::I confirm what Monty said. 10:16, January 12, 2011 (UTC) Plans for this page I ask a bit more patience from you concerning this page. I will be reforming it: * the history will be adapted to the "actual" history of our Congress, thus starting in 2003 etc. * the amendments part will be rewritten and adapted to the more recent amendments. Don't worry though: the Constitution text is up to date. The rest will follow soon. 09:44, February 1, 2011 (UTC) Article 2 or 5 Please don't fight over this. @TM: you can't remove your support once a law is accepted. @all: Why I prefer 5: yes, it is a voting right, but Article 2.4: "A state may set the voting age limit for statewide elections to either the age of 16, 17, or 18, according to the preference of the state. " This is not a right of a citizen... Therefore I propose a quick solution: in Article 2, add "The right to vote" and place this law in Article 5. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 05:16, March 18, 2013 (UTC) I'm not seeing 5. It manages legislative and executive power. Unrelated to voting rights imo. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 10:44, March 18, 2013 (UTC) Well, apart from a couple of lines, the whole proposal is unrelated to voting rights; most of the law is regulations which I don't believe belong in a Constitution. I'd suggest adding the lines 'Any Lovian citizen aged 18 or older may exercise their right to vote in an election.' and 'No citizen may be barred from voting on grounds of their gender, sexual orientation, race, personal beliefs, or religious background.' to Article 2, possibly 'A state may set the voting age limit for statewide elections to either the age of 16, 17, or 18, according to the preference of the state.' to Article 5 as well, and then putting the rest into an 'Elections Regulation Act' for the Federal Law. --Semyon 12:30, March 18, 2013 (UTC) Agreed with Semyon's approach. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:47, March 18, 2013 (UTC) I don't see how this fits in Article 5 at all. This really doesn't have much to do with government powers...--Quarantine Zone (talk) 23:54, March 18, 2013 (UTC) I don't think that "A state may set the voting age limit for statewide elections to either the age of 16, 17, or 18, according to the preference of the state. " covers a right or duty of a citizen... --OuWTBsjrief-mich 06:14, March 19, 2013 (UTC) Agreed, but I prefer to keep it all in one piece. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 10:49, March 19, 2013 (UTC) Why the hell are we talking about 5? Isn't it suppose to be 8? Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:17, March 19, 2013 (UTC) Right, must've misread it somewhere. Should be 8, no doubt about it :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:23, March 19, 2013 (UTC) I said 8 alongggggggggggggggggggggggggggg time ago xD Can that please be settled? Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:37, March 19, 2013 (UTC) I don't think it fits in 8. It's not really pertaining to the elections themselves or the formation of the government. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:11, March 19, 2013 (UTC) Why don't we either a) split it up or b) make it a new article and maybe put some of the parts into other parts of the Constitution. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 00:12, March 20, 2013 (UTC) I don't want to be obstructionist but I really think regulations like 'Electioneering is allowed, but only 30 meters or more away from the location where a voter casts a ballot.' fit better in the Federal Law than the Constitution. --Semyon 11:54, March 25, 2013 (UTC) In heinsight I agree, I think I should seperate the two parts in a "Defense of voting Rights Act" or something. Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:01, March 25, 2013 (UTC) Text of proposed 'Election Regulation Act' (provisional title) #All citizens above the age prescribed by the Constitution for federal or state elections may vote in those elections. ##The citizen must file registration for voting with the State Government to be allowed to vote. ###Registration must be filed at least two weeks before an election is held. #No citizen may be barred from voting on grounds of their gender, sexual orientation, race, personal beliefs, or religious background. ##Infringement of voting rights is a felony, punishable by a minimum of a 10,000 dollar fine. ###The Supreme Court may prescribe a greater punishment depending on the severity of the crime. ##The voting rights of citizens can be removed if they are deemed unfit by way of a Supreme Court order. ##Electioneering is allowed, but only 30 meters or more away from the location where a voter casts a ballot. ###Breaking this law once leads to a 1000 dollar fine. Breaking it more than once leads to a minimum prison sentence of three days and a 3000 dollar fine. ####The Supreme Court may prescribe a greater punishment depending on the severity of the crime. I already made the change to the constitution, because it was easier to show what I meant by an edit than explaining. If noöne agrees, it can be reverted. --Semyon 13:26, March 25, 2013 (UTC) So why did you remove the state's votes thing? What did you change!? Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:32, March 25, 2013 (UTC) Two lines of the original text are still in the Constitution, this is the rest (with those two lines removed and slightly adapted.) --Semyon 13:34, March 25, 2013 (UTC) I don't get it, what did this really change, in all reality it can just stay as one, It was suppose to protect voting rights, if that includes things like infrigement on voting rights and fines, they should stay in it's entirety. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:38, March 25, 2013 (UTC) : Yeah, I thought we had already settled this. HORTON11: • 18:20, March 25, 2013 (UTC) ::It wasn't settled, it seems that TM just got tired of edit warring. Besides, even if there was consensus, I would still be raising this issue because it's serious. --Semyon 19:11, March 25, 2013 (UTC)